I a curious as to opinions of Martin Buber's Idea of I-IT I-Thou in the Jungian construct.

Fri Nov 02, 2007 8:30 am

Tom

Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 6:35 amPosts: 49

See Jung's letters for his criticism of Buber/response to Buber's criticism.

Fri Nov 02, 2007 11:55 pm

Anonymous

Thanks for replying, I am familiar with Jung's general opinions, but I do not view my world completely through the lenses of his construct. Jung himself said don't be to Jungian. The idea of I-It I-Thou is conceptualized in many Jungian analytical books. I am more interested in the participants of this blogs general ideas. While reading through the posts I found a lot of really good interpretations and answers, and feel lucky to have come across this blog. One of the things I like about Jung and many of the depth psychology theorists is the humility, and willingness to extract positive information from others who might have socially unacceptable views within their writing. I hope I have worded this in a matter that expresses the support of open thinking without criticism. It is easy to forget that it may be that we live within our own bubble of reality which effects our perceptions and interactions with others. I would like to add that one of my favorite books is The Answer to Job and also Erich Nuemanns Art and the Creative Unconscious. I guess my question really is the subject/object differentiation of the original question. I also have a book by Mario Jacobi on Transference in which he uses I-It/I-Thou as a frame of reference.

My trouble with all this, also with Jung, is that all these people argue metaphysically. We cannot know what the "it" or the "Thou" really are, since they are transcendental "settings." Marie-Louise von Franz always said that she thinks that the theologians drank a cup of tea with God. This is why they know all about Him.

Wolfgang Pauli is the only one who follows the necessary epistemological conclusions, which we have to include since quantum physics showed that we are not able to realize what "matter" is. In the same sense we cannot say what "spirit" or what "psyche" is. In Atom and Archetype Pauli tries to show Jung the modern epistemological consequence of quantum physics. However, Jung does not understand, since he is too Neoplatonic. He thinkss that the collective unconscious exists. Epistemologically seen this idea is nothing less than a metaphysical belief. It is metaphysics. We can only say that there exists an X -- Jung calls the psyche like this, but then believes that this nonascertainable "thing" becomes ascertainable with the help of what I call the creation by cognition (Active Imagination!).

Pauli, however, shows that this is impossible: We can only observe changes, quantum physical quantum leaps, and only such quantum leaps prove indirectly that the X exists. Thus in a genius stroke he defines the psyche/matter/spirit, the X, as potential being which becomes actual being, reality, exactly in the act of observation -- what I call the creation by observation (outer or inner, physical or psychophysical, the physical or the psychophysical quantum leap). Jung however tries to derive knowledge by what I call the creation by cognition (see above) and like this thinks that the nonascertainable becomes ascertainable -- The philosopher/theologian against the empirical scientist.

From the insight of Pauli I derive my method of Body-Centered Imagination. In it one descends into the belly, stops thinking consciously, and like this is able to observe what I call singular inner quantum leaps. Like this we have some sort of indirect proof that the X -- in my interpretation the collective unconscious on the one hand and the unus mundus on the other (the latter different from the former) -- exists.

The collective unconscious, the "spiritual part" of the X, becomes observable in spontaneous synchronicities, however only if they are interpreted. The unus mundus becomes observable in BCI/SST. The latter hypothesis is confirmed, since I see the effects of Symptom/Symbol Transformation in the work with my sick patients. They themselves feel and sensate that something new is created in them, the medicina catholica, the all-healing medicine, which cures the disease. Showing the effects of BCI is a little more difficult, since it would mean a healing of the disease of the world. However, we can have a look at the contents of BCIs. They show that in the unus mundus a healing substance is created. If, however, something changes in the unus mundus, this influences also "our world." Thus, the increase of the medicina catholica in the unus mundus changes also our world. In fact, it is possible that even the physical world is completely changed. This means that like this perhaps also the background of spacetime changes, and with it the physical laws of nature. Pauli talks of this possible “third law of nature,” which as a result of a (psychophysical) quantum leap can also change the causal and the statistical causal laws of physics, on p. 26 in AaA. In the original handwritten letter, which I have seen with my own eyes, he writes:

"...that there is room left for a new type of law of nature with life phenomena." [emphasis mine]

Meier however quotes Pauli as follows:

Quote:

… that there is no room left for any new type of law of nature with life phenomena." [emphasis mine]

If "there is [in fact] room left", the BCIs of some few people could perhaps change our world and lead it into a positive direction.

I would not write this, if I had not empirical confirmations of this hypothesis, for example in some of the members of this forum.

Since I realized all this I cannot believe in any religious statement anymore, since they all are metaphysical or transcendental.

Remo

_________________'Here stands the mean uncomely stone,Tis very cheap in price!The more it is despised by fools,The more loved by the wise.'(C.G. Jung, MDR, p. 253)WebSite: http://www.paulijungunusmundus.eu

Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:15 am

Anonymous

Thanks for responding Dr Roth, I agree with you more than you might realize. The idea of the collective unconscious has always for me been an ethereal, metaphysical idea and seemed hard to follow as an empirically proven concept. As a person who tries to have critical thinking be a part of my observations (On a good day) I try to just take in information, and in the end I may not have a particular opinion always but a set of data bases which can be intermixed depending on who I am talking to so that we can have some sort of communication. My interest in Buber is really only in an observable It=object Thou=subject, a respect for somebody as a whole other person not a play toy.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum